The Politics of Fluffy

Isn't it interesting how people love to talk about free-speech, but it suddenly ceases to be a universal concept when whatever was spoken is something we disagree with?

I came across the situation just recently where the Dixie Chicks were being ostracized for some Anit-Bush comment, and can you believe, in a street-side interview with one their protestors, a man said:

Those of you who critized Natalie Maines for her comment are the true Traitors to what America is. America is not a war machine, or some other such Manifest Desinty. America is the freedoms and rights we take for granted every day, because a long time ago our fore-fathers we tired of being told what to do, what to think, what to say, and what to believe. America is the one place where anyone could come to and live their life, their way. Damn you hypocrits for judging Ms. Maines so harshly just because she's a celebrity, and her voice is heard by millions...many of whom have probably said the same thing she did.

So begins my personal tirade against the political nature of the universe, and especially within my native born country of the United States. Naturally, no one will give a shit about my political views, but if anyone happens to peruse them they may find them a bit interesting, if not paradoxical (or offensive). And quite expectedly, some will not care for the passionate animosity I often express with regards to my national governmet. However being a natural citizen allows me two considerations: I am allowed to disrespect my government under my 1^st Amendment right, and I am proud to be a part of the American Experiment.

I am just not so happy with the policies, foreign or domestic, of the American government. It is one thing to be proud of one's nation and quite another to be embarrassed by its leaders.

Speaking as such, the final quote above found at Dictionary.com expresses pretty much my opinion of politics, in that I express a complete rejection of Left versus Right ideals. Though I am quite the Federalist, my views appear possibly borderline anarchist, however for the time being I recognize the difficulty found within the chaotic results of self-government at our current stage of human evolution: To be frank, we aren't capable of self-rule as a species...yet. Until such time, however, it is obvious that the Left versus Right debate isn't any better than the utter chaos we would be subjected too under an anarchistic self-governing design. Cest la vie!

The nature of government is designed to protect each citizen from other citizens, as well as to protect the citizens against the possible domination of the government itself. This is not to say that this is the purpose, just the nature. Some goverments, for example, Monarchies, Dictatorships, Empires, etcetera, are fundamentally different in nature, while having a similar purpose. That purpose is of course being to control and manage the daily affairs of a country. There are the natural civic aspects, regulating power, water, garbage, roads, and other such utilites, which are all regulated by governments, but delegated out to private contractors. The big purpose of government is to determine a country's laws. The rules by which citizens must abide in order for there to be order. Legality and Illegality have absolutely NOTHING to do with morality. Laws are a Civil guideline which decrees what an individual is allowed to do and what they are not. Within my country, this guideline was supposedly based upon that which does not infringe upon another citizens freedom. And in America we truly do take quite a few of our freedoms for granted.

But I digress, for all the interest groups, tax laws, EEOC, big business versus small business, criminal law versus civil law and blah blah blah is all secondary. For all these laws represent the Purpose of government not its Nature. And the purpose, in all honesty, is unimportant and superfluous with regards to the fundamental core (A Libertarian concept):

A Democratic Republic is NOT a Democracy it is a Republic, albeit a Republic whose leaders are elected Democratically, there is still a huge difference between a Democracy and a Republic.  The last democracy to exist on Earth, was in Greece, before the Romans conquered it.  Every day, every citizen had a vote on every issue.  Now to realize the population of Greece at the time was nothing near the four-and-a-half million Americans today. But it is imperative that we recognize the difference between the words we use to describe our country.  So the next time some zealot cries, "We're Living In a Democracy!" you can point out that he's full of shit.  We're living in a Republic.  First of all, a republic is not a single entity but a conglomeration of multiple entities (that means the States).  Yes, each State sends representatives to the Republic that voice that State's concerns for the course of the country.  Each State within the Republic has the right to determine it's own internal affairs, yet as the whole Republic is the Nation, each State gets a say in how the Nation is run.  In some Republics, the States are Dictatorial, or Parlimentary, or other form of governmental design, but since America is a democratic Republic, we, the contituents, get to "elect" both our Interal State leaders, as well as our State's representatives to the Republic — ie: The Federal Government. Additionally, unlike the Parlimentary system, in our Republic, we get to actually elect our supreme leader, who in America is called The President.

Now despite all the definitions of the political system by which America is run, I will go on to say that it is not perfect. The representatives we elect make laws, set court precedents, determine foreign policies, and dictate how our country is run day to day so that we can live our lives. However, the glitch in this design is when a law or policy decision is made it is damn near irrevocable. It isn't impossible, for sure there are ways to repeal a law or override a precedent, but it is ever so difficult to achieve, and thus the politicians we elect today can make decisions that could be suffered through by our great-great-great decendants. A court decision here, or a law worded one way over there, and our country is fundamentally changed for decades. A perfect example of this situation is the ever contraversial Roe V. Wade court decision. I apologize, for I am most likely about to step on a few toes.

My first opinion is that, this decision should never have been made a law. Hear me out before you judge my opinion, for a law is as civil decree limiting the actions of one citizen towards another. Abortion is not a Legal issue, it is a moral one. Morality and Law are not bed-fellows. That's like a Law against Suicide, or illegal use of Narcotics. I'm not hurting another "Citizen" Now if I hurt myself, well isn't that the Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? If Dying makes me happy, then it is my right to kill myself. If it is my life, then I own it and I can do with it as I please. The MORALITY of the decision is a different matter altogether. Thus, yes I am Pro-Abortion. I'm pro-suicide, assisted-suicide, hell I'm pro-death. I like death, because if we don't die, how do we prove we were ever alive? I prove light by my definition of darkness. I prove up by the direction of down. Therefore, linguistically, I must prove life by the absence of life, or Death. These issues are deep-rooted pyschological concerns, and ones that should be taken to your local Priest, Minister, Rabbi, or Shrink, whomever you pray to, and need to be worked out on your own. They don't need to be LEGISTLATED. Thus, the Roe V. Wade decision became a LAW that has now caused more controversy than any other law in our nation's history, because of some moral debate. The Woman, her Doctor, and their God are the only people who should be involved. (Possibly an anecdote should be left in or the Father, but I'm not going to even go into the realm of His Rights at this point.)

However, I will mention a matter of personal annoyance, for you should take note that I said I was Pro-Abortion. Not Pro-Choice. That's a bullshit political term used to incite people to think in terms of freedom instead of reality. Abortion is Second Choice. Not that I am against the procedure, I'm against the bullshit language. Barring all the inconsequential hypotheticals, given the situation of two consenting adults, when you choose to have sex, that is CHOICE. Sex = Pregnancy. Duh. We all took that course in high school health class, so if you weren't paying attention then, ignorance is no excuse. Now, after you've CHOSEN to have sex, and happened to be one of the lucky ones who got pregnant, well now, the CHOICE was to have sex, the CHOICE was to NOT use protection. The SECOND CHOICE is to abort the pregnancy. I support people's freedoms, but please, be honest about it, don't hide behind political jargon.

As a sociological experiment, America was created as the greatest hodge-podge of human civilization ever. Combining together every known culture, creed, minority, majority, etcetera we have set up a scientific control experiment for the future of humanity. What will become of humankind if we, the citizens of the United States, cannot come together in peace and harmony in our own country? We have the opportunity to discover if we can overcome our differences to recognize that belief and culture are important to us all, but they are never supreme. One perspective can always be easily controverted by another, and the only persepective that is irrefutable is that we are all human, and we share the same planet. Will that planet be populated by countless tribes bent on intra-species annihilation, or will the planet be a unified species with differing ideological views? That is the hypothesis that America is set to answer.

Be that as it may, I personally recognize the media as the sole perpetrator of bad democracy, and a constant hiccup in the confines of this experiment. Not the intention of free speech or the nature of public information but the economy involved in it. Economics is my true enemy not politics. I heard a statement made that the economy is the heartbeat of America and that, I think, is a tragic truth. Money and commerce and trade should be secondary to the fundamental core of our way of life: The Bill of Rights. The media often uses the 1st Amendment as a means to get away with murder, so that the public opinion of a subject matter is swayed long before any true study has been done. Televising criminal cases, discussing allegations or arrests, and exposing the secrets of public figures is unforgivable. Crimes occur, but do we not have the ideal in this country that we are all Innocent until Proven Guilty. The media supersedes this ideal, by discussing circumstantial evidence and opinion, effectively swaying the public viewpoint of a suspect in custody. They are not criminals until they are convicted. Thus according to our law, O.J. Simpson is innocent, he did not "Get Off".

Additionally, exposing the secrets of public figures is an inappropriate invasion of privacy. Is it some rule or belief that because someone is a multimillion dollar actor or singer we have a right to know they made mistakes in their past? Haven't we all? Haven't those who purport to tell the news ever made mistakes? I suggest that the newscastors and reporters of our era first subjugate themselves to the same public scrutiny on a daily basis before they claim the public has a right to know everything about everyone. We should plaster pictures of them in a thong on a beach, or comment on their weight problems. And please don't get me started on the people who support these vultures by purchasing or paying attention to their drivel.

Also, when did it become imperative for some stiff in a suit to tell me what the news means? Tell me what happened, I'll do the thinking about it. News reporters aren't paid to think, they're paid to report. If you want to give us your opinion, then apply for an editorial position, not a reporter. At least editorial journalists are honest up front that they are giving their opinion about the news. These so-called reporters are trying to sucker us in with the illusion that they are just reporting the news, when in truth they are trying to sway us to their way of thinking.

In the end I would say my political views stretch beyond the left and right into the economic versus philosophic. The nature of America is primarily Capitolistic before democratic, for our votes are cast via money. Money and economy are all well and good, but they are transitory. One day our economy will collapse, one day our country will be no more. This is not sedition but a statement of historical fact. All great civilizations have failed. Thus the parable of the phoenix reminds me that this is not always a bad thing. Change is necessary. So when I hear discussions about President Bush and his politics, being good or evil, smart or stupid I get upset that we could so easily judge. He may be a competant or incompetant President, but who are we as fallible human beings to judge if he is Evil? I may not like him as the President, but as a Man I don't even know him.
So I will leave this diatribe with some lyrics that remind us who is to blame for our president:

The world is burning down, can't you smell the smoke in the air?
War, desease, and famine, this demon she is everywhere
Poets and preachers and politicians, they've all had they're say;
And we got 10,000 years devoted to nothing but tomorrow and yesterday.

Mr. President I hereby pardon you for your crimes,
For they are just as much mine.
Selfishness and seperation have led me to believe
that the world is not my problem.
The world is not my problem,
I am the world, You are the world, and
Yes I am the world, and you are the world.

If all of the ignorance of the world passed a second ago
What would you say? And who would you obey?

"10,000 Years (Peace is Now)"
Live